I tolerate Facebook because some family/friends don't want to venture out and try other social networking platforms. I see no reason to use "Home", so I can't say I'm devastated that Facebook's glorified bloatware won't run on my Galaxy Nexus right away.

Perhaps it is not the main reason people want to ban (or "control") guns. In terms of the number of preventable deaths, gun-related homicides are not anywhere near the biggest contributor to that statistic. So...why, out of all the things we could be focusing our time and energies on, are guns being singled out? You just said it's about reducing homicides. So...why not focus on the larger contributor to homicides? Ahh, but you probably assume that a prison is a...

You're right. We probably will end up agreeing to disagree, once again. But consider this: In 1913 - 100 years ago - the federal income tax was instituted. It was also the year the Federal Reserve came into existence. Prior to 1913, with no income tax and no central bank, did the people live in chaos and squalor? Did they sit around scratching their heads wondering who would build the roads? Were they shooting each other in the streets? No. Quite the...

I didn't omit anything. I was asking about gun-related suicides. If you want to talk about that in relation to gun-related homicides that's fine, but I didn't omit anything. A quick search on your favorite search engine will show that, according to FBI statistics, more people are killed by blunt objects (hammers, clubs, fists, etc.) than rifles. If banning (or "controlling") blunt objects would substantially reduce the number of homicides committed with such objects,...

But the money used to fund government's wasteful and harmful actions - whether intentional or not - is collected under threat of violence. If the people don't like what the government is doing with their money, they cannot stop it from taking their money. Whereas, with a private business, if the people don't like what it is doing with the money they give to it in exchange for its products or services, they can simply stop purchasing its products or services and it...

Both parts of the statement separated by the "or" were false. Quoting one or both of them does nothing to change the fact that the statement was false. It does nothing to change the purpose of the statement, which was to demonize those with whom he disagreed in a pitiful attempt to justify his support for a regime that indefinitely detains and assassinates people without due process. Quibbling over the manner in which his statement was quoted while pointing this out...